Loading...
09-20-2017 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017 Robert Fulmer 1. FURTHER TABLE Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017 Seaton Property Holdings, LLC 2. FURTHER TABLE Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55; 58 AND 61 Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017 James Beaty 3. FURTHER TABLE Tax Map No. 290.5-1-50 Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2017 Chris Carte 4. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-5 Area Variance Z-AV-55-2017 Michael and Karen LeBlanc 7. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-67 Sign Variance Z-SV-9-2017 Walmart Real Estate Business Trust 8. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25.1 Sign Variance Z-SV-9-2017 Walmart Real Estate Business Trust 14. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-36 Area Variance Z-AV-58-2017 Mike Lewis 20. Tax Map No. 290.14-1-20 Use Variance Z-UV-3-2017 Errol Silverberg 23. Tax Map No. 252.-1-38.1 Area Variance Z-AV-59-2017 Errol Silverberg 37. Tax Map No. 252.-1-38.1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY HARRISON FREER JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL MC CABE RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone, and welcome. I'd like to call to order our meeting for this evening of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals here at the Queensbury Activity Center on Bay Road. It is September 20, 2017. Welcome. We're going to start this evening with some Old Business. First is the approval of the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 16, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2017, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-I'd like to have a motion to approve the meeting minutes of August 23rd. August 23, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2017, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next item on this evening is further tabling action of Robert Fulmer. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE: Z-AV-29-2017 ROBERT FULMER MR. JACKOSKI-We have some information from Staff, please. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So Robert Fulmer is working with a representative that will represent the project at an upcoming meeting and they'll be here in November. MR. JACKOSKI-So I suspect what you mean by representative is legal counsel. 2 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily but someone else. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I need a motion to table it until when? MRS. MOORE-The first meeting in November, please. Applicant proposes construction of a revised, 924 sq. ft. 3-door detached garage. Revised project includes removal of 1,800 sq. ft. blacktop pad. Relief requested for a second garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands review required for site work within 100 ft. of a wetland. The applicant requests relief for a second garage. The Applicant requests to be Tabled until the November 2017 ZBA Meeting. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2017 ROBERT FULMER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Tabled to a meeting in November with additional application materials to be submitted by the October submission deadline. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I need a motion to further table the Seaton Property Holdings Z- AV-28-2017. Z-AV-29-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREEWORKS) MR. JACKOSKI-Could we have some information from Staff, please. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So this application the applicant is working with the Town Board to change language in the Town Code in reference to sawmills, and at this time it may lead to a deny without prejudice or they may withdraw it. So for now I would like you to table it to the first meeting in November, with an October submission deadline. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seaton Property Holdings, LLC (A-1 Tree Works). Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive. Project includes already in use new storage area, maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. Planning Board: Site plan and Special use permit for lighting manufacturing of wood products for a logging processing company. The applicant requests to be Tabled until the first November, 2017 ZBA Meeting. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-28-2017, SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS), Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Tabled to the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in November 2017 with a submission deadline of October 16, 2017. Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 3 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We have one additional item this evening. It is the James Beaty project, Hars Pars, Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017. A Type II SEAR. It is on this evening's agenda as Old Business. It's my understanding that the applicants have requested a further tabling of this matter, but since we have a public hearing scheduled I should at least open up the public hearing. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2017 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES BEATY OWNER(S) HARS PARS, INC. ZONING MDR LOCATION 168 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF LAND WHERE EXISTING GOLF COURSE BAR/ AND 4-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ARE LOCATED INTO TWO PARCELS. THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, LOT 1 WILL BE 0.30 ACRES AND THE GOLF COURSE, LOT 2 WILL BE 10.56 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE/DENSITY, BUILDING SETBACKS, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE CREATION OF NEW LOTS. CROSS REF SB 7-2017 PRELIM & SB 8-2017 FINAL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2017 LOT SIZE 10.69 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-50 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening regarding the Hars Pars application for 168 Sunnyside Road. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on that application? Seeing no one, was there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-I did not see any. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll leave the public hearing open and ask when Staff would like the meeting tabled until? MRS. MOORE-They're going to be tabled to the first meeting in October. MR. JACKOSKI-Given they've already met the submission deadline for the September meeting I assume it's just all the standard information they already have on file and move to the first meeting in October. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-May I have a motion to do that, please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James Beaty. Applicant proposes subdivision of land where existing golf course bar/ and 4-unit apartment complex are located into two parcels. The apartment complex, Lot 1 will be 0.30 acres and the golf course, Lot 2 will be 10.56 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size / density, building setbacks, and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision review is required for the creation of the new lots. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for 2 lot subdivision to reduce one parcel less than the allowed lot size, density, building setbacks and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The project proposes to create a non-conforming parcel of 0.30 ac where 2 ac is required on lot 1. Density requires 8 ac for a 4 unit complex on lot 1. Setbacks for lot 1 —41-Init Building east side 17.4 ft. where 25 ft. is required, 41-Init Building south side 13.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required for the rear setback. Garage is 11.3 ft. west side where 25 ft. setback is required; Garage is 17.9 ft. from the south property line where 30 ft. is required for the rear setback. Lot 1 permeability is 26 % where 50% is required. 4 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) Setbacks for Lot 2 side setback for the deck attached to the 2story garage is to be at 5 ft. where a 25 ft. setback is required. Applicant has requested to be tabled to October 18th for a full Board. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2017 JAMES BEATY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Tabled to the October 18, 2017 meeting agenda in order to be reviewed by a full Board. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next item on this evening's agenda is Chris Carte, 1067 Route 9 in Queensbury. Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2017. This is an Unlisted SEAR. So we will be doing SEQR this evening. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-7-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CHRIS CARTE ZONING Cl LOCATION 1067 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN STRUCTURE FOR THE WOOD CARTE TOO AT 27 SQ. FT. EXISTING SIGN DOES NOT MEET 15 FT. SETBACK REQUIREMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR SUCH SIGN. CROSS REF P-SP-25-2017; Z-AV-24-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2017 LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-5 SECTION CHAPTER 140 CHRIS CARTE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2017, Chris Carte, Meeting Date: September 20, 2017, Location: 1067 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to utilize existing a freestanding sign structure for The Wood Carte Too at 27 sq. ft. Existing sign does not meet 15 ft. setback requirement. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback for such sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum front yard setback for such sign. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant proposes to maintain the sign frame and install a new panel where the frame is 8.8 ft. from the front property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the frame is pre-existing. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to install a compliant sign frame. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 6.2 ft. 5 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain an existing sign frame and install a new sign panel. The sign panel is 27 sq. ft. to advertise the Wood Carte second store. The sign frame was utilized for the previous sign that had been on site for a number of years. The sign frame is within the Town's sewer easement area and will be subject to any requirements of the easement if they arise." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Mr. Carte, a straightforward application obviously. I assume you just want the Board members to ask you questions if they have any? MR. CARTE-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Do Board members have any questions at this time? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one here, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that we have to do the SEQR review on this one also, but at the same time the sign, the old Merrick sign was there for many, many years. It's only 8.8 feet into the setback which to me is not like 15 feet into the setback closer to the road. It's sort of in line with the other signs along that side of the corridor. It's appropriately re-done. I don't really have a problem with it as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 agree with Jim, and I think it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. It's been there for many years, and I don't think it's an overly large sign. I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of this sign. I don't see it being anything more than a replacement sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support this request, and it's too bad we have to put people through all these things, but it's sort of our process and I think it makes sense. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and I'll request a motion for SEAR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-7-2017, CHRIS CARTE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted 20th day of September 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl 6 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. May I have a motion for approval of the Sign Variance? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chris Carte for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to utilize existing a freestanding sign structure for The Wood Carte Too at 27 sq. ft. Existing sign does not meet 15 ft. setback requirement. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback for such sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum front yard setback for such sign. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant proposes to maintain the sign frame and install a new panel where the frame is 8.8 ft. from the front property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2017, Chris Carte based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted 20th day of September 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 26, 2017 and on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? Having carefully considered the information at hand here about the location of the sign, the Board does not find that there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. It's replacing a sign with a more modern version with a new business at this site. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? I guess the sign could be moved back but we don't really feel that the sign where it is presently intrudes that far into the Travel Corridor Overlay. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I guess we would say it's sort of a medium request. It's not really way over the top. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No because it's already built in the exact same location as the previous sign that was there on the site. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I think it's created by the fact of where the original sign was before purchasing the property. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; The only thing that was identified by Staff is the sewer line district that's out there, and I guess if there was any kind of taking it would have to be move at that point, but it's not anticipated that will occur. 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 7 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE Z- SV-7-2017 CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. <insert conditions/ comments>: B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Chris. I appreciate it. MR. CARTE-Thank you. I just have one quick question for you. At this point you're requesting that I have the sign put on the survey map. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. CARTE-1 need to have that done, then. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. CARTE-Okay. All right Very good. Thank you, folks. I appreciate it. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Michael & Karen LeBlanc, 34 Warren Lane, Area Variance Z-AV-55-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-55-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC OWNER(S) MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC ZONING MDR WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY LOCATION 34 WARREN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 2.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2.57 ACRES AND 0.23 ACRES (100 FT. BY 100 FT.). MAIN LOT, 2.57 ACRES, HAS AN EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN. NEW LOT, 0.23 ACRES, HAS AN EXISTING GARAGE THAT WIL BE REMOVED TO PLACE A DOUBLE- WIDE MOBILE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEWLY CREATED LOT IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT AND MOBILE HOME OVERLAY DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR THE CREATION OF THE ADDITIONAL LOT. CROSS REF P-SB-14-2017 PRELIM; P-SB 15- 2017 FINAL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-67 SECTION 179-3-040 8 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. Is the applicant here? MRS. MOORE-No. So prior to doing that, at last night's meeting they weren't able to attend. They misunderstood their notices. So I'm asking you to table it to the next meeting to next week so that they can get through their Planning Board recommendation next week and come back to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-How many items do we have on next week's agenda? MR. UNDERWOOD-There's only five. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I was going to say, it's fairly light. You'll have to open your public hearing because we can't re-advertise. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment I'll leave the public hearing open. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael and Karen LeBlanc. Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acres (100 ft. by 100 ft.). Main lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to remain. New lot, 0.23 acres, has an existing garage that will be removed to place a double-wide mobile home. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly created lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. Planning Board: Subdivision Application for the creation of the additional lot. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-55-2017 MICHAEL & KAREN LEBLANC, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Tabled to the September 27, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Sign Variance Z- SV-9-2017, again an Unlisted SEQR this evening. This property is located at 24 Quaker Ridge Boulevard. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-9-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST AGENT(S) pB2 ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING OWNER(S) WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST ZONING Cl LOCATION 24 QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN INTERNALLY LIT 66.76 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN FOR "PICK UP" AND TO INCLUDE THE WALMART SPARK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIGNAGE IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE LIMIT FOR WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF P-SP-59-2017; SV 1-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 33.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25.1 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JIM GALLAGHER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFFINPUT 9 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-9-2017, Walmart Real Estate Business Trust, Meeting Date: September 20, 2017 "Project Location: 24 Quaker Ridge Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of an internally lit 66.76 sq. ft. wall sign for "Pick Up" and to include the Walmart Spark. Relief requested for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. Section 140 Signs –number of signs. The applicant proposes a sixth sign where only one wall sign is allowed. The original project for the Walmart store received a sign variance for the five signs existing. (SV 1-2009-3/18/2009) Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated due to the location of the building from public road. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the applicant has received a sign variance previously for the number of signs currently on the building. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is to have 6 signs on the site. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has indicated Walmart proposes a new color scheme for the entire fagade of the store. The new colors are blue and grey. The main signage would remain white as well as the new signage "Pick Up". The area that is designated as pick up will be painted with an orange fagade color. The burst are to be a yellow color." MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. GALLAGHER-Of course. Good evening. My name is Jim Gallagher. I'm an architect with PB2 Architecture and Engineering, and we're representing Wal-Mart in this matter tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a straightforward application. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open a public hearing? MR. URRICO-Why can't they take one sign and stick with the five signs? MR. GALLAGHER-The signs are indicating what's going on inside the store, and they're helping the customers find their way. The pick-up is a new service. MR. URRICO-Are people going to be picking up where the sign is? MR. GALLAGHER-Not where the sign is, no. MR. URRICO-So the signs are irrelevant in terms of what's inside the store. 10 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. GALLAGHER-They're not irrelevant, but they're not relevant to an entrance. MR. URRICO-So why can't they replace one of the five existing signs they were granted when we passed this several years ago with a pick-up sign? MR. GALLAGHER-Because all of those things are still going on. MR. URRICO-But what I'm saying is I think you need to make a choice as to what you're allowed. You're allowed five signs according to the Code right now. So maybe replacing one of those signs is a choice that you have to make rather than the Town has to make. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think that's an interesting point because I remember when Price Chopper on Glen came back to us with many little signs. We hammered out a lot of details about what those signs were. Anyway, we have a public hearing. Let's see what the public says and then we'll go from there. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? We do have someone. So if you could give up the table for a moment. MR. GALLAGHER-Of course. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could join us at the table and state your name. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PATRICIA MC KEAL MS. MC KEAL-My name is Patricia McKeal and I live next to Wal-Mart in the neighborhood, and I'm just concerned, when I look at the picture there, where is this lit sign? MR. JACKOSKI-Do you live near the Quaker Road facility or the Route 9 facility? MS. MC KEAL-No, I live right next to the Quaker Road, I'm in that neighborhood right, it's a dead end. There's fence and a little path and I'm the first house there. So in the winter I can see the Wal-Mart sign. I'm just concerned where this sign, if it is going to be lit, where is it going? Is it going on the far end over here? MR. GALLAGHER-Can we scroll up and get the drawing again. Come back up a little bit. There. In the upper left there it's going to be on the orange panel facing the parking lot, not facing your home. MS. MC KEAL-Right, but my home is right there. I can see it from my windows. MR. GALLAGHER-You're across? MS. MC KEAL-I'm not across the street from Wal-Mart. I'm right next to Wal-Mart. There's apartments on one side. There's a road on the side of Wal-Mart, if you go to the back, to the tire center. There's a wooden fence, there's a little bit of woods, maybe 10 feet of woods, and then there's a neighborhood there. MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. You're actually talking about the other Wal-Mart. MR. JACKOSKI-I think you're talking about the Route 9 property. Are you across the street from the property near Gambles and The Sleep Inn and Monty's Liquor Store? MS. MC KEAL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. This one is the one down in quote unquote. MS. MC KEAL-Why did we get? MR. JACKOSKI-You will for the next application. There's two on the agenda. MS. MC KEAL-Oh, it's the other one. I was going to say, I said that's not really what ours looks like. MR. GALLAGHER-You're right, it's not. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll get to yours in a minute. 11 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MS. MC KEAL-Okay. Sorry. We didn't realize there were two. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So is there anyone else in the public who would like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So having no written comment and no relevant public comment at this point, I'll poll the Board. MR. URRICO-There is a Planning Board recommendation that I didn't read in yet. Based on its limited review they identified the following areas of concern: While the Planning Board is not objectionable to the additional signage on the building, they would like to see the new sign conform to the same size and font as the other directional signage on the building. That signage would be preferred to be without illumination and without the yellow starburst that would go along with the Pick Up sign. The Board has mixed feelings on the new paint scheme, both the blue, used on the fagade, and the orange to be used in the new Pick Up area. And that was passed on September 19th by a five to two margin. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, if we take action on this application this evening and if we're to pass it. It still has to pass, it still has to go in front of the Planning Board, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-But for only color scheme, not for the number of signs. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So does the Planning Board have jurisdiction over whether or not they use the starburst or anything? Because we're giving them a certain square footage of sign to comply and we're not specifically. MRS. MOORE-They cannot do that, no. That's why they give you direction. MR. JACKOSKI-Even though it's a color scheme thing, a yellow starburst. MRS. MOORE-A starburst period. I think it was a starburst period that they didn't want. They felt that it was too much for the sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Board members are okay with that? Thank you. All right so I'll poll the Board. Roy, why don't we start with you? MR. URRICO-1 think I gave my opinion earlier. I'm against it. I think we were generous in granting them the relief the first time for the number of signs. They came in asking for a lot more signs than five. That was what we negotiated down to. So now we're being asked to incrementally increase the signs and add one now and maybe another one later on. We've been getting back to the original application. So I would be against adding a sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Well, I usually don't get too hung up on sign requests but we've already given them a waiver for four. I guess I would agree with Roy that they should pick on the five that they want to have and not come back for another one when that was granted. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 would agree with the other Board members. I just think that this application is too substantial. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I was on the Board when the original application came in for the store up there and I think that the Town was pretty adamant at the time about the signage and the normal Wal-Mart stores. I think at that time the Board granted variances for the number of signs on the outside fagade of the building and I think this is another attempt to get an extra sign on the building and I think that if you wanted to replace the sign, take one down, that's your choice. I'm not comfortable granting another variance for another sign on the building. 12 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Given where we're kind of at with the Board at this time, it's really up to the applicant to decide. We can take a vote. You can table it and maybe come up with some other ideas, or you can withdraw your request. I can't tell you what to do, but I'm more than happy to listen to what you would like to do. MR. GALLAGHER-Well it still sounds like the alternatives are rather limited. There's clearly not a vote here for a sixth sign. MR. JACKOSKI-And I will tell you you do have a smaller Board here this evening because there are some absences. By all means if you'd like to wait and try to come with a more substantive Board, we'd certainly be willing to let you do that, too, but it's really up to you. MR. GALLAGHER-I understand and I appreciate that, but unless you get eight more members it's probably not going to pass anyway. So I think that I would suggest you go ahead and run it to its conclusion and let Wal-Mart make its decision of leaving the signs where they are or to substitute this one for another one and we'll let them make that choice at that point. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this time we'll just withdraw the application. MR. GALLAGHER-No, I would suggest you go ahead and vote and turn it down if that's what you'd like to do. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's do SEQR first, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we still need to do SEQR if we're going to turn it down? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-9-2017 WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A POSITIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: The Board was pretty adamant in deciding that there was already excessive signage on this building, that we gave them the option to proceed with replacement by taking down one of the signs that currently exists and replacing it with a new one, and that would be the only alternative to add another sign on the building, not being in keeping with the original intentions of the Town when they created the store with different colors and the minimum signage. Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2017, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a motion for a positive declaration. Could we elaborate a little bit, Jim, about the number of signs, the amount of lighting? AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward NOES: Mr. Jackoski ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Next item. I need a motion to deny the application by Wal-Mart. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Walmart Real Estate Business Trust for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of an internally lit 66.76 sq. ft. wall sign for "Pick Up" and to include the Walmart Spark. Relief requested for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. Section 140 Signs —number of signs. 13 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) The applicant proposes a sixth sign where only one wall sign is allowed. The original project for the Walmart store received a sign variance for the five signs existing. (SV 1-2009-3/18/2009) SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-9-2017 Walmart Real Estate Business Trust, based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will result in a significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Positive Declaration, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: The Board was pretty adamant in deciding that there was already excessive signage on this building, that we gave them the option to proceed with replacement by taking down one of the signs that currently exists and replacing it with a new one, and that would be the only alternative to add another sign on the building, not being in keeping with the original intentions of the Town when they created the store with different colors and the minimum signage. Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward NOES: Mr. Jackoski ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 20, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? The Board feels that excess signage on the building is not possible at this point in time because we already have a number of signs displayed on the outside of the fagade. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The Board has given them the response that we would probably approve replacement of the sign by taking down one of the current signs on the building and replacing it with a new requested sign. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Yes, it is. The Board considers the number of signs to be already excessive on the building and to add another one would be further increasing the number. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? When the store was created, the Town was very key in deciding what colors were to be used on that building as well as the number of signs on the building. So this response in this case here, we feel that there would be an adverse impact with more signage created. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It seems to be a corporate interest in creating more signage on the building and showing more services created but we already are in excess of signage. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would be outweighed by the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; By creating excess lighted signage on the exterior of the building. 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is not the minimum necessary to operate any business in the community; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-9- 2017, WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST FOR THE WALMART LOCATION OF 24 QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 14 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2017, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-So the key here is the number of signs is in significant excess of the one that's allowed. Correct, Staff? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And the placement being especially that when it says pick-up it wasn't necessarily denoting a pick-up space. It's just that they were offering the pick-up service. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and the sign being lit. MR. JACKOSKI-And the sign being lit and the light pollution and the fagade of the business, and we could even factor in the fact that this is a building that sits back off of Quaker Road, the main road, but Quaker Ridge Road, you can still see the building through the trees, especially in the winter. Okay. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-I'll say yes based on the number. I'm not necessarily sure that it'll cause environmental conditions that change significantly, but based on the number it is excessive. The next item on this evening is another Sign Variance, Number 8-2017, Unlisted SEAR. This is at 891 State Route 9, just down the road here around the corner. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-8-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST AGENTS) pB2 ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING OWNER(S) WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST ZONING CI LOCATION 891 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN INTERNALLY LIT 66.76 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN FOR "PICK UP" AND TO INCLUDE THE WALMART SPARK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIGNAGE IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE LIMIT FOR WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF P-SP-60-2017; SV 71-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 17.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JIM GALLAGHER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-8-2017, Walmart Real Estate Business Trust, Meeting Date: September 20, 2017 "Project Location: 891 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of an internally lit 66.76 sq. ft. wall sign for "Pick Up" 15 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) and to include the Walmart Spark. Relief requested for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. Section 140 Signs —number of signs. The applicant proposes a 12th sign at the front of the building where only one wall sign is allowed. The Walmart store current structure received a sign variance allowing 11 signs. (SV 71-2003). Seven Signs for the auto area and five signs at the front. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated due to the location of the building from public road. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the applicant has received a sign variance previously for the number of signs currently on the building. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is to have 12 signs on the site. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has indicated Walmart proposes a new color scheme for the entire fagade of the store. The new colors are blue and grey. The main signage would remain white as well as the new signage "Pick Up". The area that is designated as pick up will be painted with an orange fagade color. The bursts are to be a yellow color." MR. JACKOSKI-Read in the Planning Board, please. MR. URRICO-The Planning Board based on its limited review identified the following areas of concern. The Board would be agreeable to the Pick Up sign as long as it conformed to the other directional signage without illumination. The Board has mixed feelings regarding the new painted area for the Pick Up in that the color is orange and the Board would prefer that the new Pick Up signage be installed but with the omission of the yellow burst by the Pick Up sign. And that was passed on September 19, 2017 by a 6 to 1 margin. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. GALLAGHER-Hi. I'm Jim Gallagher an architect from PB2 Architecture and Engineering. Here to represent Wal-Mart in this matter tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like to add anything, Jim, to the record regarding this application? MR. GALLAGHER-One of the things that concerns me about the statement talks about I think 13 signs. There are five on the front of the store. The small signs on the rear, can we go to the second page of that, please. 16 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MRS. MOORE-And just for your benefit, I did share an e-mail with the Board members today explaining that those other signs were for the auto service. MR. JACKOSKI-There's seven. MR. GALLAGHER-Yes, each of the doors has a little sign over it identifying which is there, tires or lube shop, and on the tire and lube sign above it's to announce what that area is. They're not shown on that sheet. MRS. MOORE-It's on this. MR. JACKOSKI-I drove through there again today. So it's funny I didn't actually recognize, didn't notice any of the signs on the building because you're at Wal-Mart. I know what's inside Wal-Mart. I hadn't really paid attention to all the signs on the building until I drove around and really looked at them. MR. GALLAGHER-I understand, but as I said, when you look at the left elevation, those inconspicuous signs over the doors are there but there are only five on the front of this building and we're asking for a sixth. So in that way it's very similar to what we've just discussed. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. MR. URRICO-I have a question. The sign for Auntie Anne's/Philly's Subs, is that separate from this? MRS. MOORE-That is separate because it is a separate entity. It's a second business. It's separate. So it's not counted for Wal-Mart signs. So I know there are five in the front. Four are for the Wal-Mart. MR. JACKOSKI-So if Wal-Mart decides to sub out some additional business, all those individual businesses could have a sign? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-How many other businesses are inside Wal-Mart besides. There's a bank sometimes which had, I think Citizens was on this one. MR. JACKOSKI-But there's a hair salon. There's a nail salon, there's a bank. There's Aunt Annie's. MRS. MOORE-And there's a limit that Wal-Mart says that you can either place this certain signage for whatever is in the building at that time. So, yes, they're separate entities, could have potentially other signs. MR. JACKOSKI-And their building is considered a plaza. MRS. MOORE-I believe it would be. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GALLAGHER-One more thing before we go on. I know it's going to come up in just a moment. The pick-up sign on this store is on the opposite end of this store, away from the homes that we're going to be talking about here in just a minute. Can we come up just a bit on that? MRS. MOORE-Do you want the other one? MR. JACKOSKI-I see what you're saying. You're saying it's away from the single family homes in Greenway North. MR. GALLAGHER-Right. It's on the north end of the building and the houses are on the south end of the building. MR. JACKOSKI-But it is toward all the apartment complexes. So there are other residences on the other side. 17 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. GALLAGHER-All right. Well I was aware that they were going to come and talk about the south side, where would the sign go, and so I thought I would address it at this moment where they went. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I'll open the public hearing at this time, unless there's other Board member comments. MR. URRICO-Well I had the same comments I had earlier except this is even more excessive because when they came in the first time fortunately or unfortunately I was on the Board at the time and it was something in the area of 19 to 20 signs that were requested. Again, these were negotiated down from that first request and this went on for quite a few months if I recall. So now we negotiated down to 11 and now, you know, 13, 14 years later they're coming back and asking for more signs. I realize business changes and they've been very generous in not utilizing the single sign out front to the full extent either, it's kind of a subtle sign comparatively, but I still have the same view on this one that I had on the previous application that it's one more sign than was agreed to, and I would think that we should make the substitute out a sign that they were approved for. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I don't want to poll everybody yet, but I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PATRICIA MC KEAL MS. MC KEAL-Okay. Our concern actually this time, my name is Patricia McKeal. MR. JACKOSKI-What's your street address, please? MS. MC KEAL-19 Greenway Drive. Our concern also is with the paint. I think you were going to paint the building, the entire building. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, unfortunately that's not in front of us. That's the Planning Board. You heard that the Planning Board has communicated back to us. They have a concern with the colors of the building as well. Right now we're just focused on the sign. MS. MC KEAL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And the size of the sign as it relates, I'm sorry, the number of signs as it relates to all the signs on the building, and this sign is to the north. MS. MC KEAL-It is. MR. JACKOSKI-I realize you're on the south end of the property. MS. MC KEAL-Right. Okay. I heard the paint part in there and that was the other part that I really wanted to discuss. MS. MC KEAL-Would we be getting another notice about that? Because I only got one notice. MRS. MOORE-You would have received, well, five days, so you should be receiving one shortly for the meeting next week. MS. MC KEAL-The one that we did receive did include the paint in it for tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-I think it mentioned it in the notes and stuff as to what was going on, but I can also tell you feel free to simple send in a letter. As you can tell they do get read into the record. So you don't have to appear if you don't want to sit through the proceedings. MS. MC KEAL-Okay. My only other concern, if the sign is going to go at the other end, I didn't think, when I saw the first one, which was the wrong Wal-Mart, I figured because we do have a the greenhouse on our end, so I thought of the pickup sign there. KATHLEEN PELELLA MS. PELELLA-And I'm Kathleen Pelella. I also think that it's a good idea to limit that number of signs regardless of where it would be, one end or the other, because people do live on the other 18 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) end and I think that limiting it to that five is a good idea if that's within the original plan for that. It does get a little. MR. JACKOSKI-There are 11. So I think what you're suggesting. MS. PELELLA-Well, the ones on the back I'm not talking about. I'm talking about the ones on the front fagade. I think that's a good idea to limit that, just for the people that do live in that neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-So they have the right for 11 signs, and I don't know if it was specifically identified in the motion way back 14 years ago or whatever it was, as to how many in front and how many on the side, but they can certainly consolidate signs. For example they suggested tire and oil, whatever, one and two, they could take those two and say tire and oil and then have a pick-up sign and they'd be within their rights to have the number of signs available if they consolidate. MS. MC KEAL-All right. Good. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. We appreciate your comments. All right. Having no written comment? MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board. Roy's already made his decision known. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I guess I would maybe consider this as a more reasonable application if it was identifying the pick-up location, but it's my understanding that it's just the fact that you can pick-up and it doesn't identify the location. So I'm in agreement that we should force them to keep within the number of signs that we've already given them a variance for. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the Town has been more than generous with the amount of signage on this building. We don't have to be like every other community that accepts everything that corporate wants and I think that keeping in my here, too, I agree with what Harrison's comments were regarding the pick-up sign. In the future it could be free drone delivery or something, too, so, you know, where does it all end? So, I mean, you do have the alternative of swapping out one of the current signs on the building for your signage, but I would not like to see the sign lit as I think that's excessive lighting. The Board has pretty much dialed it in previously by keeping the number of signs at where they are now. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Based on the comments of my fellow Board members I feel that sign is too substantial. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I think there's plenty of alternatives here. You could easily consolidate three or four of the signs on the side. I actually can't believe the Board approved 11 signs way back when, but I wasn't on the Board at that time. I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for SEQR first. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-The applicant does have the same option. MR. GALLAGHER-Proceed please. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. GALLAGHER-I'm sure that they'll want to finalize this one way or the other. MR. JACKOSKI-Can we have a motion for SEAR, please. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-8-2017 WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL 19 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A POSITIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Given that we can't move forward with SEAR, we're going to look to the attorney as to what to do. MR. CROWE-Well, you can direct an EIS, which I think would be, you know, probably unwanted by the applicant, and, you know, pending that you can make a motion on the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Pending that. Right. However, we could also wait until we have a more full Board to go through the SEQR process. I mean, I don't see why we should, Jim, you would know better than I, but go through an EIS. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what you need to do is you need to go back and re-think, you know, whether you, you just had a previous application that was quite similar to this one, what your rationale is for changing your mind on the SEAR. So I mean I think there has to be some consistency built into it. It's a different location, but I think you have to look at the signage for what's being requested based upon what the Town Code is and the Sign Code is on the building. MR. FREER-So I guess I would have no problem with making both of them Negative environmentally. The only environmental impact is the idea of light pollution but that, in my understanding SEAR, what we're doing here tonight doesn't make it a positive declaration for SEAR. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well I think you have to look at the record, though, reflecting what the Town preferred when they built the store initially and what the number of signs were at that time. They were pretty specific and I don't think that some of you have had a chance to review that language. For those of us who were around at the time, I think that was only Roy and I. So I guess the Board could table this for further review, pull that old language out so people could read it and see what the thinking was at the time and then come back and make a decision. MR. JACKOSKI-But I don't know that I can, that's 13 or 14 years ago. I mean I understand that it's the historical perspective, but in the course of improvement things change, and we should look at the record as it stands right at this moment and what the ideology is of the community right at this moment. So, I mean, I struggled with the positive dec on the last one. That's why I voted no, as I go through all of that stuff. I'm going to struggle with one more lighted sign as it relates to SEAR. However if you go to the actual Town Code and what we're trying to, there's no doubt in my mind this is excessive, so I have no problem denying the application. It's just that the SEQR part of it I have trouble with a positive dec. Now I realize we've got an application just before this that's similar that we did give a positive dec. So for consistency's sake we're looking for counsel to tell us, which is why I said to counsel was counsel okay with how we were proceeding with the last application. So I'm kind of looking for your guidance as to what we should do at this point. MR. CROWE-In the terms of, are you bound by the last motion? As you're indicating, no, there's a difference in location, differences in the impact, and so I don't think that you're bound to proceed based on the last motion. You can have discussion on the issue and, you know, with the applicant still here and with, I would say they're agreement go back and amend the prior motion if that's what you, if you want to address and if there's a desire to re-visit the past SEQR motion, but I think you have enough of a change in the environment and in the impact to make a separate determination here and then it comes down to the rationale for the motion for a positive dec and then parlaying that into a step forward on the Area Variance or the Sign Variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Given the situation we're in at this moment, do we have to make a motion on the Sign Variance tonight? Can we postpone it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. 20 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) MR. CROWE-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-I recommend that someone make a motion to postpone the establishment of a resolution on this Sign Variance until a future meeting until we can seek additional counsel. MR. FREER-I'll make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-I have a motion to delay this until an October meeting, the first October meeting. Is that okay? It's going to take us a while to figure out how to, I don't know what we're going to do because we didn't pass SEAR. My thoughts are we could have a more full Board together and we get through the SEQR process and then get through the motion process. Because SEQR failed. We didn't pass it either way. Okay, and there's no way to pass it either way two to three, with a reduced Board there's no other choice. So I have a motion to delay this meeting further until the first meeting in October. Is that going to work, Staff, or is that full? MRS. MOORE-You have five and five at the moment. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. Thank you, Harrison. Can I have a second to do that? MR. UNDERWOOD-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Walmart Real Estate Business Trust for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of an internally lit 66.76 sq. ft. wall sign for "Pick Up" and to include the Walmart Spark. Relief requested for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-8-2017 Walmart Real Estate Business Trust based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will result in a significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Positive Declaration, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-8-2017 WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST (891 STATE ROUTE 9) UNTIL THE FIRST ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING IN OCTOBER, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Until the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in October, with a submission deadline if there's anything to add in September. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: MR. URRICO-What are we voting on, on the motion to delay the meeting? MRS. MOORE-Your tabling motion. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next item on this evening's agenda is Mike Lewis, Owner: Derek Swift, 43 Martell Road, Area Variance Z-AV-58-2017. A Type II SEQR and there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-58-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MIKE LEWIS OWNER(S) DEREK SWIFT ZONING MDR LOCATION 43 MARTELL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 21 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) RECONSTRUCTION OF THE 576 SQ. FT. HOME THAT WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE THIS YEAR, 2017. IN ADDITION, APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 192 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SHORELINE RESTRICTIONS TO A WETLAND. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DISTURBANCE OF LAND WITHIN 100 FT. OF A REGULATED WETLAND. CROSS REF P-SP-61-2017; P-FWW-5-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.14-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040 MIKE LEWIS, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-58-2017, Mike Lewis, Meeting Date: September 20, 2017 "Project Location: 43 Martell Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes reconstruction of the 576 sq. ft. home that was destroyed by fire this year, 2017. In addition, applicant proposes construction of a 192 sq. ft. addition to the home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for shoreline restrictions to a wetland. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands Permit are required for the disturbance of land within 100 ft. of a regulated wetland. Relief Required: The applicant requests from minimum setback requirements for shoreline restrictions to a wetland. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement RR 5A zone/shoreline setback The proposed home is to be 69.9 ft. to the front wetland delineation, 41.4 ft. to the west, 48.1 ft. to the north, and 38.0 ft. to the east where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot configuration and the delineation of the wetland on the site — surrounding the previous home site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5.1 ft. to the front, 33.6 ft. to the west, 26.9 to the north and 37 ft. to the east. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to rebuild an existing 576 sq. ft. home that was destroyed by fire in 2017. The project also includes the addition of a 192 sq. ft. area to the front of the home. The applicant has indicated a previous addition on the rear of the home would not be rebuilt as it was not permitted in favor of constructing a new front addition." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on a limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. That was passed on September 19, 2017 by a unanimous vote/ 22 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Hello and welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. LEWIS-Mike Lewis. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike, it's a pretty straightforward application so I assume you just want Board members to ask you questions if any? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? Having no Board member questions, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board for this particular application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment I'll poll the Board before I close the public hearing. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-In first blush, you know, it's a small addition and unfortunately you lost your house. So right now I'm cautiously in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we have to look at the improvement in the situation because the addition that formerly was on the back is not going to be there. The addition that's requested on the front is pretty minimal, 192 square feet is pretty small. I think we recognize the fact that this property, because it's surrounded by identified wetlands, has some legitimate concerns for environmental reasons, but at the same time, having lost the house to a fire, I think it's built where it's built and the impacts have not been significant previously. So it wouldn't be anticipated to be significant. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can support this project. It seems to be minimal and not self-created. So I'd support it. MR. JACKOSKI-After polling the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mike Lewis for Derek Swift. Applicant proposes reconstruction of the 576 sq. ft. home that was destroyed by fire this year, 2017. In addition, applicant proposes construction of a 192 sq. ft. addition to the home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for shoreline restrictions to a wetland. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands Permit are required for the disturbance of land within 100 ft. of a regulated wetland. Relief Required: The applicant requests from minimum setback requirements for shoreline restrictions to a wetland. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts— dimensional requirement RR 5A zone/shoreline setback The proposed home is to be 69.9 ft. to the front wetland delineation, 41.4 ft. to the west, 48.1 ft. to the north, and 38.0 ft. to the east where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 20, 2017; 23 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of neither the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. It is merely replacing a structure that was destroyed by fire. 2. Feasible alternatives are very limited because of the wetlands and this is a small addition. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Again, 192 square feet is not asking for a large variance. 4. There is really not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district that we can identified, even though there are wetlands involved. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is not self-created because of the fire. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-58-2017 MIKE LEWIS FOR DEREK SWIFT, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20th day of September 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item this evening on the agenda is Errol Silverberg, 230 Lockhart Mountain Road (L. Rae Gillis Subdivision) Ward 1. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. It is Use Variance Number Z-UV-3-2017, a Type II SEAR, a lot of 6.55 acres. USE VARIANCE Z-UV-3-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ERROL SILVERBERG AGENT(S) DALE R. CLOTHIER & MICHAEL S. BORGOS, ESQ. OWNER(S) ERROL SILVERBERG ZONING RR-5A/LC-10A LOCATION 230 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD (L. RAE GILLIS SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,304 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 8, 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUIRED AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION TO THE PRIVATE GARAGE IS ON A PARCEL WHERE A PRINCIPAL USE (SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING) DOES NOT EXIST. ADDITIONALLY, AN AREA VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AS THE STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A PRIVATE GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A PRIVATE GARAGE. CROSS REF Z-AV-59-2017; P-SP-62-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.1-38.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I will turn it over to Roy to be read into the record, and then I'm going to have some questions for counsel regarding the need for a Use Variance, and then we'll hear from the applicant. 24 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance Z-UV-3-2017, Errol Silverberg, Meeting Date: September 20, 2017 "Project Location: 230 Lockhart Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Relief is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where a principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Additionally, an area variance is required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structure -Garage The applicant proposes a 10,704 sq. ft. garage where 8400 sq. ft. is existing and 2,304 sq. ft. is the addition. Garages are limited to 2,200 sq. ft. Garages are also considered accessory structures and may not be constructed without a principal structure. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant has indicated the property was purchased in 2008 for $200,000 and an additional $50,000 spent to clean property, $60,000 to rehabilitate the building and property then $20,000 for pavement. The investment total is about $330,000 to date where the property and building area assessed at $388,000. The applicant has explained that the building and property use was originally used as a farm in 1961. The applicant has indicated the building would not be compliant for residence or commercial usage due to code requirements. The applicant has also indicated the development of the property for residential use would cost about $650,000 and the current improvements would cost about$150,000. The project site was previously granted a Use Variance (UV79-1995) for the operation of trailer manufacturing business —utilizing the site and building for the operation. The applicant has not provided information that the previous use variance cannot be supported on the site and realize a reasonable return. 2. Whether the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The applicant has explained was the use from a commercial chicken farm, then to an auto repair shop and to a trailer manufacturer to the current use as a private garage. The project as presented does not indicate the site has been marketed or evaluated for the allowed uses in the RR-5A zone. 3. That the requested Use Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the use is currently and will remain a low-key use and have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has indicated a boat storage use is a permitted use in the zone under a special use permit and would be more intense for the area including movement of boats on a seasonal basis winter storage and spring/summer pick up. The applicant has identified one allowed use in the zone through special use permit but has not identified others such as a single family dwelling where it would be similar to the existing neighborhood. 4. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. The applicant indicated they purchased the property as current trailer manufacture was relocating with the intent to use the site for storage of cars. The Code requires a principle use to be on site before an accessory use. The applicant had purchased and utilized the property without a compliance request —the applicant would have been notified the proposed use would have required a use variance. 25 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 2,304 sq. ft. single story addition to an existing 8,400 sq. ft. private garage. Project is in RR-5A zone that does not list private garage as an allowed use. The garage is to be used for storage of classic cars a private collection. The plans show the location of the addition and elevations. The board may request additional information in regards to reasonable financial return related to the allowed uses in the zone. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Mr. Borgos, welcome. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos for the applicant. I'm here with Dale Clothier, another agent for the applicant/owner Errol Silverberg, and Tracey Clothier is also here in the audience. She prepared the materials that you've received already. I'm not going to read through all those materials. Listening to what Mr. Urrico just read is boring enough. There's a lot of dense stuff in here and some definitions. I'm going to try to hit the highlights and try to make some sense of all of this, but it is not an easy question. The applicant purchased this property in 2008 and it had a long history. The subject structure on the property was constructed in 1961 by Mr. Gillis, and I believe he utilized materials from the farm. It was a much larger piece at that time. The adjacent piece to the south is still owned by Mr. Gillis. Some other parcels have been sold off historically, but it was a chicken farm, and it was utilized as such until the poultry industry indicated that he couldn't maintain the chicken farm anymore. Top of the World Auto Body went in with a Use Variance obtained from the Queensbury ZBA at the time, operated for a while and then moved out because it wasn't really a viable place for an auto body repair. They went down on Quaker Road I think. After that Mr. Gillis was operating a boat repair facility in the structure to the south of the neighboring parcel, and it provided a stream of customers for a custom trailer manufacturer. So in 1995 a Use Variance was granted to allow for the manufacture of boat trailers, custom trailers. When Mr. Gillis took his boat business elsewhere because that was no longer viable, it was difficult to haul the boats up and down the hill, he moved down into the village and the business dried up for the trailer manufacturer. So he sold to Mr. Silverberg. Admittedly Mr. Silverberg didn't check with anybody at the Town at the time. He had an attorney and he went in and saw a building that still had some life to it, and it was perfect for storing things. He had an automobile collection. He lived nearby down on the lake and this was a good fit for him. So for the past nine years he's improved the property. Mr. Clothier's going to tell us a little bit of the history from his perspective because he was there at the beginning when the place had broken windows and was overrun with all sorts of contaminated materials on the outside of the property, junk cars, what have you. Cleaned it all up, made it look nice, presentable and put a gate on it. He's been a compliant neighbor for nine years. No complaints that I'm aware of, not on file with the Town about the operation of the facility, and the operation of it has been used for nine years. The applicant has the desire to have a little bit more flexibility. Mr. Clothier will tell you how difficult it is to get one car out because of all the posts and the way they're arranged. It sometimes takes an hour or two. So he just wants the space, he really wants to continue what's been done there. So he came to the Town to get an opinion as to what needs to be done to get a building permit and the Zoning Administrator looked at this and said that's a tough one, and gave the letter that he gave on August 11 th, which has been paraphrased already, but I'll read it to you in relevant part. "Upon my review I find that your proposal will require an Area Variance, Use Variance and Site Plan Review prior to the issuance of a building permit. An Area Variance is needed as the proposed addition results in a structure in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage." Emphasis on private garage. "A Use Variance is required as your plan calls for the construction of an addition to a private garage on a parcel where no allowable principal use (single family dwelling) exists. Site Plan Review is needed for the expansion of the use." So these materials were prepared to respond to that Zoning Administrator's determination. I'm puzzled, coming into this just last week, because I turned to the definitions within the Code Section 179-2-010, private parking garage, is "an accessory building or structure to a residential use, attached or detached, used primarily for storage of no more than three automobiles, provided that such garage may be used to shelter only one commercial vehicle, but in no event shall such commercial vehicle exceed 1 1/2 tons' capacity. A private garage never holds businesses, occupations or services for profit." The next definition in the Code is public garage which is shorter, "Any garage other than a private garage which is used for the storage of motor vehicles." So my take away on that is that if you have more than three in a garage it's a public garage, yet when you turn to the allowable uses table for residential districts, commercial districts and industrial districts, that's all that we have, there is no allowed use for public garage. It's not mentioned anywhere else. So this is why it really relies upon the Zoning Administrator's that it's a private garage and we're going with that. We want to do this use that's been going on for nine years, and we need an accommodation to expand, and we need to legitimize that use that's been going on. So the Zoning Administrator says that since Mr. Silverberg owns all these cars it's a private garage. Okay. We can live 26 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) with that, but we need to have a Use Variance to say that the private garage without the residence on the property is allowed. Because this structure is existing, has had investment made in it, both in the acquisition and then the improvements to date, there's a substantial amount of money that's already been invested and as Tracey's outlined in her materials, dollars and cents argument is already there. The Staff Notes and comments have mentioned that we have failed to thus far provide any evidence that the operation of a trailer manufacturing business is viable. Mr. Clothier's going to talk a little bit more about that. I'm going to argue the point that by the history of that, the trailer manufacturer couldn't make it there. They moved to another location and eventually sold out, but it's a remote location. There's not a lot of road traffic. There's no customers coming to the site. In this particular situation Mr. Silverberg doesn't advertise it. He's doesn't have people coming there. He's not seeking people. In fact he's got he's got a security gate and cameras to make sure it is protected and doesn't draw people in. So it's a very innocuous use. As far as the other Staff comments, it mentions that we have not gone through and indicated whether there are any other allowed uses within Rural Residential Five Acre that could be supported. So I just want to take a minute and go through those. Under Site Plan Review, Agricultural Service or Retail. I'll argue again that retail is not viable because it's not a high traffic road. There's no signage. There's nothing about this use that would lend itself to it, and I don't see any other retail use making a go of it in that location. There's not the density of population to support that. Safe for agricultural service. All those type of services have seemed to coalesce into larger urban centers and serving more and more people, much like we have seen with the retail services coalescing into the major retailers, Wal- Mart, Lowe's, Home Depot, etc. knocking out the small businesses. So a 1961 farmer hill structure is not going to suffice for those needs. Agricultural use. It's a small parcel. It has some steep slopes at the back in the Land Conservation zone and the area that's RR-5 is a small area, and you really don't have room to put any type of agricultural growth or use. Bed and breakfast, again it's not habitable as it is. Mr. Clothier was a builder for years and he'll tell you that that structure is not going to meet any Codes for habitation. A boat storage facility is a Special Use permit. The property to the south that was operated by Mr. Gillis as a boat repair had been used for boat storage for quite a while. Interesting to me that the Code has Special Use Permit for boat storage but doesn't address automobile storage. It could be a proposal for the future I suppose but not available at the present. It could be a cemetery. I don't think I need to really argue that one too long. Cemetery plots don't sell for all that much, and there's a plentitude of them in more urban centers. So this is not a viable thing, nor do I think it could necessarily pass muster as a cemetery due to the small size. Duplex again is another residential use, not habitable as it is and not easily converted. Group camp, the same thing would require a lot more infrastructure. There's no well on the site. The water is in a storage tank. So again it would require a lot of changes to try to accommodate something like that and the small size does not lend itself to a group camp. Home occupation would require a home. It could be a kennel under a Special Use Permit. We don't think any of the neighbors really want kennels. We've been aware of other kennel proposals in the Town before. That might be a hard sell in proximity to neighbors. A nursery. It's not large enough again for planting, the same as the agricultural analysis. Outdoor recreation, the same thing, very small size, not suitable for it. Place of worship and playground I think fall into the same category as very, very unlikely due to its physical proximity or lack or proximity to any urban setting center. Produce stand, both large and small, again rely upon road traffic. A public or semi-public building is not a viable because of the antiquated construction methodology and the number of posts, and again you're not going to draw many people there. A riding academy seems to be inappropriate there because there's no acreage to ride upon. I suppose you could put horses in there with some modification, but I don't know where you would take them to ride. Special Use Permit is going to allow sand, gravel or topsoil extraction. None of that exists there in any quantity to make it viable. A sawmill, chipping or pallet mill, another Special Use Permit, doesn't seem to be compatible with the neighborhood or likely to be a profitable venture. Or veterinary clinic. Again, there's a number of veterinary clinics that seem to have been successful in more centrally located urban centers where they can have customers. So that leaves remaining the single family dwelling, which we've already analyzed would require demolition of this structure, removal of that, infrastructure preparation, construction of that dwelling. The assessment from the Assessor seems to have been driven upwards over the years with the sale of the other parcels which seem to have views. This one does not have a view and it would be unlikely that somebody would put a very significant home on there. It may be a tough sell, especially when you have so much demolition and expense upfront. Mr. Silverberg has put in considerable investment and it trying to make a reasonable sustainable use of this property and that's why he's before you tonight to try to make sure that this use that he's been making of it for the past nine years can continue. Mr. Clothier now can give us some history of the property from his personal experience and tell you a little bit more about what he's seen. DALE CLOTHIER 27 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. CLOTHIER-When Mr. Silverberg bought the property and asked me to go up and take a look at it, windows were broken, glass missing, no siding. There was 1961 Aspenite for the side of the building. It was built by Mr. Gillis, a farmer. The foundation is a couple of blocks deep and they didn't fill the block void so they move around in the winter. The mice had a square dance there every Saturday night and the snakes came in to eat the mice. I mean, this place was a wreck, and so Mr. Silverberg had me clean it up and you can see the lawn is all mowed. The snakes are gone and we still have to deal with the mice every once in a while but it's been all cleaned up. Now Mr. Gillis was actually a son that had the boat business and there was a partnership in the selling of trailers and sending customers both ways. So when that disappeared, that was the end of that, but it's also the property values. That was an incubator zone for many, many years for other businesses too when it was cheap. When Mr. Gillis used to have a very low rent, like Top of The World Auto Body could go in there and repair cars maybe a little cheaper until they became known and then moved on, and the trailer guy had to move out also. He got some reputation I'm sure, but he couldn't maintain his business in Warrensburg either because Home Depot and Lowe's and Tractor Supply have taken out the lower end of the trailer market or a large portion of the trailer market. A third of the building has less than eight foot head room and so some of these sports cars are limited to 40 inches tall and so they fit in there and what else fits in, in this kind of space, and in order to fireproof it we have metallic firestop insulation blankets spread across the framing and it's not particularly attractive or easy to keep clean or anything else, and there are posts everywhere. So there are no footings under the posts, but it has lasted all those snowstorms since 1961. So the building still has its value, and if there are any specific questions you have about the building I'll try and answer them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mike, is it operated as a business or is it just totally personal use at the present time? MR. BORGOS-That is a question that I will attempt to answer. I don't think it's a binary type response. So the reason I say that is in order to maintain the advantage of having a New York State dealer's license, he must transact four or five vehicles per year to show that he is a dealer, but he is buying these cars to hold and to sell for investment purposes or for his own pleasure. So it is not open to the public in the sense of a commercial business. Any sales that are arranged are done over the phone or through the Internet. So it's private in the sense that it is closed to the public from a retail walk up type of perspective, but he cannot not do some commercial sales under that license. In order to keep the access to those markets we have to go to the auctions and buy what he's looking to buy. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is that listed with the County or is it the Town permit then? MR. BORGOS-It is. It is, and it's got the required, New York State requires you put that big green sign out on the side of the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Like the repair sign. MR. BORGOS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. BORGOS-That's on the side of the building. It's not out on the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-So he's basically taking title and then transferring titles from himself to somebody else. MR. BORGOS-Yes. MR. CLOTHIER-The dealer plates. You have so many cars, it was difficult to register every single car. So he can take a dealer plate and put it on a different car if he wants to take one for a ride or show it or something. That was the real reason for the business, but he registered as a business immediately, in New York State and Warren County. He didn't know about the Use Variance and didn't expect that the trailer business wouldn't allow him to store vehicles in this building. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Laura, the Town was not aware what the use was up there after, since '08. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's a long time. 28 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. BORGOS-Nice and quiet the way it should be. Right? MR. URRICO-The previous uses you mentioned pre-date any zoning code in the area? MR. BORGOS-The original construction did, but the Top of The World Auto Body received the Use Variance in 1990 and then a Use Variance for the trailer business was in 1995. So in an interesting way it seems that the burden of proof upon the applicant has been met twice, established by this same Zoning Board, different make up of course, but there's precedent in that and I think it's interesting because those were both for real commercial purposes. This now, according to the Zoning Administrator's interpretation in 2017, is a private garage, which is, I think admittedly, and we can all agree that it's a much less intense use than any of those commercial businesses that were working. So this Board, as you know, always, you know, is focused on granting the minimum amount of relief necessary to resolve a hardship upon the applicant, and we are suggesting that this approval be limited to the private garage, storage of these type of cars, these automobiles. It really shrinks down what can happen there to a very finite small thing, which I think is, from a public policy standpoint, a good thing for the Town and for the residents around it. Because it is quiet and it's been proven that way through nine years in history. So I don't know what more we can talk about and hypothecate about, speculate about within the analysis, but I'd be happy to answer any other questions about where you see pitfalls in this or if you need some more information. MR. JACKOSKI-My concern is that you're asking for a substantial request. MR. BORGOS-The expansion is something not in terms of we want to do something beyond the storage of automobiles. It's an area expansion and that area expansion is something that has to be addressed because the private garage is limited to 2,000 square feet. We're already way beyond that. So I think that question becomes more of a Site Plan Review and the Planning Board looked at it last night and said, yes, you've got plenty of room. There's no identified problems here. This site can support it because it's large enough to add on another 2300 square feet to this structure. That part I think is the easy part because from an Area Variance standpoint, we meet all the criteria. It's a big, big lot for what we're asking to do. MR. JACKOSKI-But when the Gillis family owned the surrounding properties, before Mr. Silverberg purchased the property, I suspect that there was some understanding by Board members in granting Use Variances that they understood that the Gillis family was very careful about what was going on there and they were interconnected businesses like you said, they were family businesses. Now that relationship of the properties being interconnected so to speak by family is no longer there and I've got to tell you, I have a really hard time putting a used car lot capability on the land. MR. BORGOS-Well, there's not any exterior storage. MR. JACKOSKI-Not now. MR. BORGOS-It's all interior, and any approval could be conditioned that there would be no exterior storage and mandate that it all be interior. That's something that the applicant would readily agree to. MR. JACKOSKI-But doesn't New York State require the auto dealers to actually have a physical office on site and conduct business and store their official records on site? MR. CLOTHIER-We have a small office for them. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but I heard before that there was going to be no public transactions, but now I'm hearing there's an office. MR. CLOTHIER-We don't have to have a public component. MR. JACKOSKI-How do you transact your business? MR. CLOTHIER-All on the Internet. All sales are done on the Internet. MR. JACKOSKI-Customers don't come to see the cars? MR. CLOTHIER-No. You can only come to the garage invitation only, and he only invites his buddies once in a while. He's not here for nine months and so for nine months I go up every Saturday and check the building to see if the heat's on. 29 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-And how do you let somebody come in and see the cars? MR. CLOTHIER-1 can let somebody come in. I tell him when I let somebody see the cars, but there's no public access at all and none of his sales are done on site. He has occasionally bought some at auction and sent them to Long Island and they didn't even go through up here but they went through the books. He needs three or four a year just to maintain his books. MR. JACKOSKI-So what again is the reason for the large expansion? MR. CLOTHIER-It's so hard to get cars in and out, and I can't do any work on the building without moving, it's a major space. He doesn't allow the cars to get rained on. They can't be outside. They can't get wet. They can't have sun on them. MR. JACKOSKI-I know Mr. Silverberg. I know how fastidious he is. I do understand, but the struggle I have is for nine or ten years, maybe even longer because I think Eddie Gillis moved out of there a long time ago, you know, that whole neighborhood has been, I don't think there's any grandfathering anymore. Correct? How long does grandfathering last in the Town, Staff for use? MRS. MOORE-For that particular use. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. I'm asking. So we've gone three times longer than that. I think that the neighbors and the character of that neighborhood isn't conducive to a used car facility because that's really what this is. MR. CLOTHIER-Well, don't you believe that we did a much better job? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not here to argue that. I'm here to argue the permanent use of the property and I'm here to understand whether or not, what you're suggesting to me is that Mr. Silverberg overpaid when he purchased the property for$200,000. What I heard you say was it was pretty much a disaster. Then why did he pay $200,000 for it? Which is the basis for the economic analysis that was shown to us. MR. CLOTHIER-It was worth $200,000 to him. I guess that's the reason. MR. JACKOSKI-But now you're asking us because that's what he felt it was, you're asking us for a Use Variance. I haven't seen any marketing studies. The property, let's face it, on Lockhart Mountain sells for quite a bit of money, the property on Lockhart Mountain. MR. CLOTHIER-The ones that have sold for those values have had some use. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it's sold for more than those values, let's face it. MR. BORGOS-1 understand how you're seeing this as a potential negative if the approval was granted. I know that we've had instances in the Town where approvals were granted and they became something other than as presented. This is the case where I think if the stipulations are detailed enough, such as the interior only storage, it certainly can't be called a used car lot. It's been defined by the Zoning Administrator here as a private garage and if the approval is limited to the interior storage of automobiles only within the garage structure, no exterior storage, you eliminate that concern, or you make it very simple for the enforcement officer should there be a future violation. MR. JACKOSKI-What are the plans for sprinklering the building with all these cars being in the building and the Fire Marshal? MR. CLOTHIER-We haven't gone to construction drawings. We will have to go to construction drawings and engineers and figure out what we would have to do. MR. JACKOSKI-Has anyone talked to the Fire Marshal about his concern about storing that many cars in the building and that? MR. CLOTHIER-All he could tell is that the Fire Marshal went through at some point with the trailer and that's how they came up with the firestop insulation. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any signage? MR. BORGOS-No, no signage. 0 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-That could be a stipulation no signage whatsoever on the property? MR. BORGOS-Correct. The only thing that's required is that green New York State sign. You can't see it from the road. I didn't see it when I drove up. MR. CLOTHIER-It's red. MR. BORGOS-I'm sorry, it's red. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess at this point we're just talking used. We're not talking signs. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any kind of a public comment on this tonight at all? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, we will, as soon as I open it up. MRS. HAYWARD-1 do have a question. My question is in relationship to the first point of the balancing test. And the financial evidence for every single use in the district and you've outlined eloquently about each one and the viability of each use, but I didn't hear any language about the financial viability of each use, and the reason I think this is important is because in the request of a Use Variance, it's a very, very serious issue before the Zoning Board in the Town of Queensbury. So for that reason, I'd ask you this question. Have you considered the financial impact of each use? MR. BORGOS-Absolutely, and that's why I went through. MRS. HAYWARD-1 need to see dollars and cents proof. MR. BORGOS-It's impractical or impossible to do that for each of the defined uses, and there are plenty of cases where Use Variances are granted without that. The dollars and cents analysis for each of those is an absurdity when it comes to some of those specific ones. MRS. HAYWARD-Some. MR. BORGOS-So, you know, like the chipping mill for example. We could obviously obtain information from the nearest chipping mill and find out what the infrastructure costs were and the analysis. MRS. HAYWARD-That would not be practical, but there are some uses that would be viable up there. MR. BORGOS-Which ones can I elaborate on for you? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I have to admit I don't remember every one from the list. MR. BORGOS-Okay. MRS. HAYWARD-But to present dollars and cents proof in my mind, as a member of this Board, I think would help sway me. MR. BORGOS-Sure. So the agricultural use, for example. MRS. HAYWARD-That would be a viable use. MR. BORGOS-What type of dollars and cents use could I obtain and provide to the Board/ MRS. HAYWARD-Real estate, that's one thing, you know, marketability in the past that it's been used successfully. MR. BORGOS-Okay. Well, I'm sure I can find a real estate broker who could opine on all of those different uses and provide some dollars and cents. MR. URRICO-1 think what she's asking, though, when we've been down this route before with Use Variances, and we really need to see, you know, dollars and cents. We need to see the use protracted out, not just a real estate broker coming by and say, we can't sell this property. MR. BORGOS-Sure. I've presented a few Use Variances before and have had some success with that doing just what you suggest. So I definitely understand what you're asking for. 1 31 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) guess what I'm trying to say is by going through these different things I'm arguing that we don't need to do that because none of those others, other than the residential, are feasible. So if it doesn't rise to the level of feasibility, there's no sense in going through the dollars and cents. That's what I'm trying to say. MRS. HAYWARD-1 hear what you're saying but I think some of those uses are feasible in that area, okay. As far as the agricultural, yes, that would satisfy me, you know, with some other viable uses. I'm not saying this to put a thorn in your side. There is a precedent for this, and I'm referring to New York State Planning Federation as I always do in their determination of the Use Variance and how to proceed, as we all do with all Zoning Boards across New York State. MR. BORGOS-Sure. MRS. HAYWARD-So if you like I can produce a list for you, if given a moment to compile that list. MR. BORGOS-Okay. Well I'm exploring with you and I appreciate the feedback, because I want to make sure I understand what it is that you're looking for. I also think the other element that leads me to believe that these other ones aren't feasible are because this body has done this twice before and concluded that the test was satisfied, and the structure hasn't changed. MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I have to admit, I've been a part of this body for a year, and this is the second time a Use Variance has been before this Board when I've been a voting member. So I don't have precedent to cling to. MR. BORGOS-No, no. I'm not talking about my own personal experience. I'm talking about using this particular property improved by this 1961 structure hasn't changed from 1990 when it was granted a Use Variance to be a commercial auto body repair, and then in 1995 it was granted a Use Variance to become a commercial trailer facility. MRS. HAYWARD-1 understand. MR. BORGOS-So the Boards in 1990 and 1995 both found that there was sufficient basis that all of these other things were not viable, and the Code hasn't changed that much since 1995 to say that there's different uses now that are allowed uses in the residential zone. It's really an analysis that says this structure is unique and pre-dates the Code. That's where we're coming from. MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not having any issue with the uniqueness of the property. I just want to make sure, as a matter of process, that this Board has competent financial evidence in the record to support the Use Variance. The other parts of the balancing test I really don't have an issue with. MR. BORGOS-Okay, well that's all great feedback. So that's homework that I can go do, if we were to seek a tabling tonight, and we could return. MRS. HAYWARD-I'll see how the other members of the Board feel about the financial evidence. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Has the Town Fire Marshal been out there since '95 when the trailer manufacturing operation was still viable? MR. CLOTHIER-1 have no idea. MR. UNDERWOOD-So no one's showed up in all those intervening years when the business was registered? MR. JACKOSKI-I can tell you that I can't believe that would be true. Mike Palmer and his team are rigid in doing their inspections of businesses that are operating in the Town. I think once there's no longer a business there, there's no longer a reason for them to be there, but I don't know how long it's been since a business has actually occupied the site. Do you know that, Mr. Borgos? MR. BORGOS-2007. 2 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-They actually were still operating in 2007? MR. BORGOS-Mr. Bunting was operating the trailer business then. He was the one that obtained the Use Variance in 1995. MR. URRICO-How would the additional 2304 make it more financially viable than the current size? MR. BORGOS-I don't think the applicant is arguing that the additional square footage makes it more financially viable. It is something that is desirable for him to continue using it as a private garage for the storage of vehicles, just to have, it's a space consideration. He's got a certain number of vehicles that stuffs it full, and because of the arrangement of the posts that were in that original construction that can't be moved. They can't remodel it and put in steel beams or anything. So it's, it needs to be able to be an additional space to continue the use of the structure as it is. MR. URRICO-But that's what triggered the Use Variance. Right? MR. BORGOS-Yes. I think it's really a sustainability type argument. Do we continue to use the '61 structure? In order to continue its use by Mr. Silverberg, he says it needs to be bigger. So he wants to put the addition on to allow that '61 structure to continue to have some life in it. If it's denied then it'll probably be an abandonment of that and it'll be an empty space probably put on the market and who knows what's going to become of it because we have information from the appeal to the Town on this issue that essentially says the last thing of record was the Use Variance to allow for that trailer manufacturer. So let's see if we can find a trailer manufacturer to go in there. It's either going to be that or a significant renovation to do one of these other approved uses. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think that's a good point for counsel. Given the 10 year lapse, has the trailer use been considered abandoned? MR. CROWE-No? MR. JACKOSKI-It'll run forever with the property, right? MR. CROWE-It'll run forever with the land. MR. BORGOS-So that's why I think it's kind of limiting from a use standpoint. It's either what we think is clear based on my feasibility argument that it's going to be torn down to be a residence or it will be something other. I suppose somebody could build a residence and keep the structure. That's a possibility. Haven't considered if somebody really wanted to do that, especially, I assume all of you went up to see the site and saw that, you know, it's got some limitations on where you can build. Maybe you could comment a little bit on where the building could be sited if they're not going to take down the building. MR. JACKOSKI-But again until we have financial numbers on, I mean, how much, what did the realtors tell you the property was worth? MR. BORGOS-Those were some of the details we could certainly return with and provide to you. MR. JACKOSKI-And I remember the barn. I remember as a kid buying many eggs in that barn, and the smell of that barn or that area, but until we get financial information, and one of the other questions in our test is, is the alleged hardship self-created, and the emphasis is on and, I don't know that you've addressed that argument with us yet. Is it self-created? MR. BORGOS-Well, that's always a subjective interpretation. I would argue that it was not self- created because the structure was built before the zoning and Mr. Silverberg just bought it as is. He did not change it, come before this Board in order to seek approval to expand upon it, but he's seeking to use it minimally. So is his request to you is to use it differently than as a commercial trailer manufacturer a self-created hardship? You could argue it that it is, yes. I understand that argument, but if that was the case, then you'd never grant a Use Variance. It would be very, very challenging to say that anybody buying something other than what it was permitted for could every obtain a Use Variance to change it. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think you probably realize, and I think counsel will help us. Use Variances are very difficult to grant. 33 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. BORGOS-Understood. Yes, and I've always taken the approach that the Zoning Board is here to solve the thorny issues that the broad brush Zoning Code could not possibly anticipate when it was drafted. There's always going to be some unique situations. MR. JACKOSKI-But I think seriously the Zoning Code anticipated residential use. MR. BORGOS-And it would be your understanding. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the Town fathers realized that they zoned that residential. MR. BORGOS-And it would be your assertion, then, that they did that zoning, they wanted to see pre-existing, or agricultural uses like the chicken farm get converted to residential. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm saying whatever allowed use is in that zone, that's what they did, but areas of the Town they've re-zoned areas because they've had a master plan. MR. BORGOS-I understand that. MR. JACKOSKI-And the master plan was basically to stop what has happened in the 60's and the 70's and maybe even in the 80's. Jim would know more about the 90's, but, you know, the Town took a hard look when they did their master plan to figure out what they wanted the Town to look like and what was reasonable and acceptable in the zones they created. MR. BORGOS-Well, the variance of course is there to provide for relief where somebody would have an economic hardship that has resulted in that re-zoning or that change from this prior use, and that's what really we're talking about here. So if we look to table tonight, come back with competent financial evidence to address those questions. It's this type of colloquy that really helps us evaluate whether there could be an approval if we are able to sufficiently address you with financial data. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, this Board has had issues in the past with realtors at the flip of a coin coming in and based on their name in the community providing a value and yet we could get another realtor who could come in with a different value and we could get another relator who could come up with a different value because let's face it realtors are looking for a good listing. Correct? So what guidance might we offer the applicants if any if we're going to end up with that argument in the future that certain realtors have maybe not provided the most economically sound data in the evaluation of the property? MR. URRICO-First of all, it's a different test. Right, am I correct? It's a balancing test that we have to be certain on every issue. It's not, every point has to be proven or we have to support every point in order to win that argument. So it's not a balancing test. It's not a matter of having good information on point one that overwhelms the other points. Each one has to be, we have to understand what it's doing. Financially I'm going to let these guys talk about that more than me, but to me I keep being stuck on that additional 2200 feet. I'd like you to make the argument financially why it's not viable at the current size and why you need that additional space to make it viable, and if you can prove that financially, to me that would be a big selling point. MR. JACKOSKI-And I want to go back to counsel. We've had instances where a use, and I believe it was the Harris garage on Pickle Hill Road, so there was use of the property that at the time I guess was abandoned or not abandoned I guess that was the argument because it was outside the allowable uses within the zone, and we had to rule on whether or not there was a continuation of that business or they had lost their opportunity to operate the business that had been a going concern there for many, many, many years. Right? So now that this trailer manufacturing facility is no longer in operation for 10 years, how does that one get to stay but the Harris property couldn't stay? Especially if Harris was right around three or four years. So it was touchy as to whether or not it was being used, but clearly the trailer manufacturing has not been on this property for 10 plus years. The zone is the zone. How could a trailer manufacturing facility be allowed to go back in there just like that? MR. CROWE-Well, the Use Variance essentially changes the Code for that property, and it's not the structure. MR. JACKOSKI-The Code has not changed on that property since the Use Variance was issued? MR. CROWE-The Use Variance changes what's allowable until the end of time or until there's another change in that parcel zoning. 34 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) MR. UNDERWOOD-Until something supersedes it. MR. CROWE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Until the parcel zoning changes, and we haven't changed the zoning out there since 2000 whatever it was. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's Rural Residential. MR. JACKOSKI-I thought it changed. Well, we can look that up. That's an important factor for us to look up. Has the zone changed since the variance was issued on that trailer manufacturing facility? Because I agree with you. You're saying to us the variance was allowed when the zone was whatever it was. But if the Town changed the zoning after that variance was issued, and it's a new use, wouldn't they have to put in for a variance? They haven't been using it for 10 years. MR. CROWE-If you're saying it was, if the scenario is that trailer manufacturer was allowed and then that went out of business, then the Code changed and now something, say another trailer manufacturer wants to come in, and the question is if that subsequent zoning change would wipe out the previous. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. CROWE-Yes, I would argue that that would change. If it eliminated the trailer manufacturer. MR. JACKOSKI-What I'm getting at is I think that's true. So if we had a zoning change in the area since they went out of business or whatever, I don't know that there is a viable trailer manufacturing opportunity for the property. That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. BORGOS-Yes, I'm not sure. We can research that, but I think that we might have a distinction, too. I think the Harris property was a pre-existing nonconforming. They didn't have a Use Variance to put it in there. MR. JACKOSKI-It was pre-existing but I don't know that it was nonconforming at the time it started. MR. BORGOS-But the analysis at the time that you were reviewing it, whether it was a pre- existing use that's currently nonconforming. So that's why I used that short answer. I would say in our case the analogy would be to poultry farming. That's a pre-existing nonconforming use. We can't just go use it because we have the interruption in use. So the interruption of use definitely applies to pre-existing nonconforming uses, but what we have here is that there was a Use Variance granted. MR. JACKOSKI-I know but now we have an interrupting use. Mr. Silverberg's use is an interrupting use. MR. BORGOS-But this was something that was granted by the Zoning Board and I think, and I agree with counsel, that that is an exception to the Code that continues to run with the land. It doesn't have an interruption argument. The interruption piece, that tacking argument, goes with the pre-existing nonconforming. It's an interesting question. We certainly can find out. I think what I'm going to request of the Chair is that we do table this so that we have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Silverberg, see what we can evaluate an what kind of evidence we can bring forward and discuss with him whether he wants to return with the additional evidence or if he wants to try something different. MR. JACKOSKI-And as you can imagine this whole issue with the public garage and a private garage and a residence and all of these factors that are playing into this particular application, there's a lot here for us. MR. BORGOS-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-And can we legitimize this a little bit by polling Board members about what they might offer as considerations? MR. JACKOSKI-I have no problem with doing that except I do, I don't think it's appropriate for Board members to give guidance to the applicants on how to move forward. 5 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I mean, just in general. MR. JACKOSKI-Our feeling about the application is fine, but I don't want to give guidance on how to move forward, please. So I've got to open the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to open the public hearing at this time and ask if there's anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board on the application. Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, I don't see any. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'm leaving the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board for you now so you can get a flavor for how they feel. Does anybody want to go first? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I will. I think it's important for us as a Board to consider everything that's before us here and I think that if we look at the historical reference here, we have what was, what is and what have might have been, and it's a little bit overwhelming at the time for the Board members, but I would say this. If the chicken farm had just rotted into the ground, there would be nothing up on that site. We had a couple of uses that were considered legitimate that were granted Use Variances, that is the auto body shop as well as the trailer manufacturing shop and I think when Mr. Silverberg purchased the property and decided he was going to use it for his own personal usage it fell into a gray area at that point in time, you know, that was 2008. Correct? MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. In 2008 I think that, you know, he devised the plan to use this for storage of his classic car collection which he operates for his own personal use. I don't really see that this is a viable commercial usage, but he does have a business license so he can buy and sell cars legitimately to be on the market and I think that's essentially what you reiterated to us at the time. So I think that what we need to do is think about what's going to happen. We have a large structure up here on site. I think that it's been requested to add on to that structure to make it more usable for his use. The Board I think is legitimately concerned at this time with the addition onto this property because there doesn't seem to be anything in our Code book that allows for personal usage of such a large structure on any Rural Residential Five acre lot in Town, but at the same time it seems to me to be a pretty benign use as far as personal usage, you know, as opposed to commercial usage. I don't really see that there would be a viable return to a trailer manufacturing business at any point in the future because that market seems to have dried up over the years, otherwise it would be remained on site where it was. So at this point in time that's all I have to say, but I think that we need to keep in mind that the proof of a Use Variance is very difficult for anybody to prove, but at the same time at this point in time that's all I want to say at the moment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Jim. Would anyone else like to go next? MRS. HAYWARD-I'll go next. I think I made myself clear earlier. I think it's important that competent financial evidence be brought forth and there are definitions of competent financial evidence out there that are easily obtainable and I also have an issue with the criteria itself being different. That's very important. So for those reasons I'm not in favor at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I think we have a terminology conundrum with regard to private garage because it's pretty clear three cars and this are not the same thing, yet how to figure out if it's a public garage or some other way. MR. JACKOSKI-How can it be a private garage when they have a license and actually have a New York State license sign for commercial activity? MR. FREER-Conundrum. But in my view this is why we have a Zoning Board of Appeals because it's impossible to write the Code, cover every single subject and cover every single situation and every single circumstance, and I think that with some constraints to protect the 6 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) quality of the neighborhood and the other activities that this Board is supposed to charge itself with, allowing for the Use Variance as terminology burdened as it is, is feasible. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm having a hard time with this because I kind of feel the applicant is sort of pushed into this position. I mean, part of it was triggered by them wanting to put up something bigger, but they were sort of shoved into the Use Variance realm and they're trying to fit this square peg into this round hole that we asked them to do, or the Town asked them to do, and I kind of feel that it's not the right way to go with this, that, I mean, it doesn't feel right to me that we're asking the applicant to make this a Use Variance or make them conform to a Use Variance when it's not totally a Use Variance that's needed. I'm just having trouble finding that, you know, yes, he has to provide us with a lot of information, but for a Use Variance that we're asking him to do. Is that right? Is there a better way to go? Is there a better way that we can work with somebody in the Town to be conforming to the neighborhood and what they're doing, what they've already been doing? MR. FREER-But the building permit is the issue, right? I mean, that's really why we're here because they tried to get a building permit. MR. URRICO-Correct. And that triggered everything else, and this is where I stand right now. If I had to vote, I wouldn't. I'd abstain. I don't think we have enough information, right information yet on what's going on here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could we ask for some guidance from the Town Board and maybe put this into a classification as a Special Use Permit, you know, because it seems to me to be more of a unique situation. I don't really think it's a Use Variance, you know, in the sense that it's putting us on the spot to make something, a call that's not necessary for us to do. I mean, it seems like a very unique gray area that we have not had to deal with previously. So I would think the Town Board would be interested in it because it doesn't seem like it's over the top crazy to have cars stored in a building that already pre-exists. You're not creating a new situation. MR. BORGOS-That path has been briefly discussed but it is a nine to twelve month path. This was an opportunity to come in and seek more immediate relief in a matter of a few months to meet the building season and get a structure up before the winter. So that's why we're here, but Mr. Urrico's absolutely right. We feel like we're kind of, we're trying to do the right thing, follow the rules, and this is the direction we were told to go in, but I appreciate all this feedback. It affirms much of the things that we've talked about internally and it will give me reason to pursue the other path, if that's what's chosen, and to support the notion that we're not the only ones that think so. So I appreciate those comments. MR. JACKOSKI-I think I want to add a couple of things for you, Mike. And I'm just trying to put on my most logical of hats. Why would I ever want, to me, a manufacturing use is much more difficult on the property than the use that is proposed in front of us. Any manufacturing, industrial, whatever you want to call it, there's a lot more going on, materials coming in and out, employees. This to me is a much smaller impact. Conditions that have been thrown around or bantered about is everything stays inside, no signage. Quite frankly, looking like it looks, it looks like an old barn out there that somebody's taking very nice care of. Right? So I get all that, internally I'm thinking okay it's been there. The neighbors aren't complaining about it. I'm not sure anybody even realized he was doing car sales out of the facility. But once the cat's out of the bag, it does start to raise a question about how we're going to handle it. So without the primary structure or the principal structure, sorry, and as large as it is, it's becoming a commercial venture, bigger than I think anybody expects. So it's tough. I don't know what we're going to do. I do want to see some financials, dot our I's and cross our T's and it may take us a while to do that, but logically manufacturing versus the proposed use, to me, it's a no- brainer, but it doesn't meet all the requirements. So you've got to go back through and do, is the parcel big enough, is it not big enough, all of that stuff. So it's a process. It's not anything about Mr. Silverberg. It's a process. MR. BORGOS-Sure. I understand all that and I appreciate those comments. Question on process. I'm used to seeing seven of you. Do you have two others that just couldn't make it tonight? So you have an alternate. Okay. You're the alternate. Congratulations on being able to fill in for this one. MR. JACKOSKI-So, yes, so unfortunately, you know, Roy just got off an airplane and I don't even think he's seen his family yet. So he literally got here like 10 minutes before the meeting started. I don't know where he was. 37 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) MR. URRICO-1 was in Utah. MR. JACKOSKI-in Utah. MR. JACKOSKI-We're going to request a motion to table this application until November. MRS. MOORE-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Errol Silverberg for a variance of Section(s) 179-3-040 and 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Relief is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where a principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Additionally, an area variance is required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE Z-UV-3-2017 ERROL SILVERBERG, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Tabled until the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in November with an October submission deadline. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Now, counsel and Staff, do we even have to open the next one because we couldn't move forward with the first one? MR. CROWE-You have to open it if there's a public hearing. MRS. MOORE-There's a public hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-So it wasn't one was contingent on the other? MRS. MOORE-Typically they are. MR. URRICO-You'd have to table that, too. MRS. MOORE-You would end up tabling the Area Variance as well. MR. JACKOSKI-To me it's contingent. MR. BORGOS-I'm not going to argue with you. MR. JACKOSKI-So do you want us to read it into the record and open the public hearing? MRS. MOORE-You would have to, it would be re-advertised if you don't open any of the public hearing tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-What would you like us to do, to make it easy for Staff and counsel? I can open it. MR. URRICO-Open it and ask if there's anybody that wants to speak on it. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. The next item on this evening's agenda is the same property, the same applicant, the same owner. Unfortunately I threw away my agenda. I apologize. It is 38 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 09/20/2017) Area Variance number Z-AV-59-2017. It is a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-59-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ERROL SILVERBERG AGENT(S) DALE R. CLOTHIER & MICHAEL S. BORGOS, ESQ. OWNER(S) ERROL SILVERBERG ZONING RR-5A/LC-10A LOCATION 230 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD (L. RAE GILLIS SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,304 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 8,400 SQ. FT. GARAGE. USE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION TO THE PRIVATE GARAGE IS ON A PARCEL WHERE PRINCIPAL USE (SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING) DOES NOT EXIST. RELIEF REQUIRED AS THE STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A PRIVATE GARAGE AND TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY WITHOUT A PRINCIPLE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A PRIVATE GARAGE. CROSS REF Z-UV-3-2017; P-SP-62-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.-1-38.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MR. JACKOSKI-I'll have Roy just read in the project description basic. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-59-2017, Errol Silverberg, Meeting Date: September 20, 2017 "Project Location: 230 Lockhart Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Use Variance is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Relief required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage and to have an accessory without a principle. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Given the project description read into the record, I'm going to open the public hearing this evening, given the circumstances with the previous application we have the same owner. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'm going to leave the public hearing open and seek a motion to table this application as a contingent application to the Use Variance application until November. MR. FREER-I'll make that motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Errol Silverberg. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Use Variance is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Relief required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage and to have an accessory without a principle. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-59-2017 BEATY SILVERBERG, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Tabled to a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in November with a submission deadline of October. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 9 (Queensbury ZBA IMeeting 00/20/2017) ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, Mike. We'll get through it somehow. MR. BORGOS-That's okay. I appreciate your time and your comments. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just as a discussion point. When Charlie Wood had his big car collection he stored it in Glens Falls and I wonder what the classification was for those buildings. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think Staff and counsel will have to research public and private garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 mean the City of Glens Falls, if there was a regulation or something, we could see what that was. Just out of curiosity. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to adjourn if there's no further business to be brought in front of the Board? MR. FREER-I'll make a motion we adjourn. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. MR. URRICO-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2017, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 40